turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Whig Party (CSA)
I don't think much of the anonymous post is cannon. Or even sensible. TR 01:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC) :Agreed. Away it goes! Turtle Fan 04:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Should we move this to Confederate Whig Party and edit out the US Whig party info? Since HT has done nothing with the US Whigs, I'm not sure how important it is that we have it. TR 19:28, February 17, 2010 (UTC) :I'd say it's vitally unimportant. Removing it sounds good, but until we get American and/or British Whigs, I'd suggest there's no harm in leaving it where it is. Turtle Fan 19:53, February 17, 2010 (UTC) ATL clarification Since there's a trend of differentiating HT creations from their OTL homonyms, maybe this should be retitled "Whig Party (Southern Victory)".JonathanMarkoff (talk) 17:57, February 25, 2016 (UTC) :Alternatively, we could split this into U.S. and Confederate Whig Party as previously suggested. Since the US Whig is a real party, it could get a OTL section then the SV sub-section. In fact, the first paragraph of what we have here looks like OTL. ::I'm more inclined to do that. I'm really not sure if we need to keep a US Whig party article, honestly. The main thrust of the section is that it's really a weird name for the CS to use given its anti-slavery, pro-Unionist, pro-industrialist platform. We could rather easily dump it altogether, just create/edit the CS Whig Party article. TR (talk) 23:33, February 25, 2016 (UTC) :::Yeah, a US Whig article strikes me as pretty useless. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:36, February 26, 2016 (UTC) :I have been wondering about T2G since that novel has a "Tory Party" and near the end there is a throw-away paragraph about a couple of Whig Shadow Cabinet members attending a Russian Embassy reception. The sense I have is that the two are NAU branches of the British parties, say the way Canadian Provinces (or US States) have counterparts to the Federal parties. The Tories have enough for a standalone "NAU Tory Party" article but the Whigs wouldn't be worth it unless it was a sub-article on the OTL British party. ML4E (talk) 23:14, February 25, 2016 (UTC) ::NAU Tory Party article makes sense. I recall that the Tories were reasonably important. If the Whigs are simply part of a shadow cabinet, then that would be a pretty anemic article. TR (talk) 23:33, February 25, 2016 (UTC) :::"The Whigs were in opposition in the 1990s." Yeah, not that exciting. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:36, February 26, 2016 (UTC) ::True enough. That can be covered in the NAU Tory Party article. The only question I have, is whether any reference to OTL British Tories should be made? ML4E (talk) 19:57, February 26, 2016 (UTC) :::I think we can get by without such references; people will "get" the connection. TR (talk) 20:38, February 26, 2016 (UTC) ::::In 1795 the Tory Party was the Tory Party. In 1995 it was a nickname for the Conservative Party. That introduces enough ambiguity that I'm not sure we can assume people will get it. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:07, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :::::I may be naive, but I'm inclined to think that people who care enough to know that the Conservative Party even exists will know something of its history. I could be wrong, though. The other problem is that HT has done nothing with the old Tory Party aside from this NAU version of it. What form would a reference take under those circumstances? TR (talk) 02:30, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::::::But did the Tories of this timeline fall in the 1820s and leave space for a new party to rise, as in OTL, or did they stay strong? Are the T2G Tories real Tories or are they Conservatives? Do we know? Does it matter? Not having read T2G, I'll defer to those who have on the answers, but I do believe these are appropriate questions to ask. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:22, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Real Tories, I believe. The NAU Tory Party is effectively a fictional one. As ML4E said, it seems to follow the British Tory Party's lead (not the Conservative Party). TR (talk) 04:16, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::They may have begun as an offshoot of the British Tory Party and outlasted their parent; my understanding (I could be wrong) is that the Liberal Party of Canada has done so. I'm not trying to be difficult here, it's just my curiosity running away with me. If this is beyond the scope of the book, then it's irrelevant, but it's still going to tickle my mind. Turtle Fan (talk) 09:11, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::There's no reason to think this happened. As far as I can recall, it's still the Tory Party in Britain. TR (talk) 16:43, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::::The NAU party is always referred to as the Tory Party (both capitalized). There is mention that they are conservative but always lower case "c" suggesting political outlook rather than party name. Given this and the fact that His Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the NAU are the Whigs, I am comfortable in assuming both parties continued into the 1990s in Britain. :::::So King's the leader of a small c conservative party? How interesting. Granted, the circumstances of his life are very different from OTL, and the meaning of the words conservative and liberal will vary widely from one time and place to the next. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:27, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::::::One of the many twee twists in the book. ML4E (talk) 18:48, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::::The Liberal Party of Canada had an independent origin from that of Britain dating back to the Rebellions of 1837 and the reformist movement of the day. Their nickname is the "Grits" from "Clear Grits", one of the reformist parties of the day. The Conservative Party of Canada are called "Tories" given their connection to both the British Party and the United Empire Loyalists (i.e. American Revolution Tories) who migrated to the Canadas in its aftermath. ML4E (talk) 17:14, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :::::Thanks. I was aware that the Canadian Conservatives had ties to the British Conservatives (though the former has gone through a few different iterations, yes? [Yes indeed. ML4E (talk)]') and so assumed the Canadian Liberals likewise descended from the now-defunct British Liberals. I did not realize their party's history went back as far as it did; I know that, at the time of confederation, the Conservatives' main rival was the Reform Party (though Reform leaders cooperated quite closely with John A MacDonald on the confederation issue, so it was a pretty amicable opposition for a short while at least). I guess I just assumed that somewhere along the way the Reform Party fell and the Liberal Party (with help from Gladstone or whomever) stepped in to fill the void. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:27, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::::::My understanding was that at the time, Reform referred to a more general political movement (say the Tea Party in current US politics) rather than a formal party. The aforementioned Clear Grits were a formal political party within the movement and along with other such parties formed the basis of the Liberal Party. The more radical elements became the Liberals while the more conservative joined MacDonald's Conservative Party. ML4E (talk) 18:48, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Most of my knowledge of the details of Canadian confederation comes from the last two chapters and epilogue of John Boyko's book ''Blood and Daring. I thought he spoke of Reform as a formal party organization (complete with a party leader, George Brown), but it's possible that I read in my own preconceptions or that I'm just misremembering now. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:42, February 27, 2016 (UTC) Trivia I'm not sure the trivia is necessary, as it largely repeats the italic statements at the start of the article.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:42, August 18, 2018 (UTC) :Reviewing both, I'd rather dump the italicized statement up top. There's no point in using a "redirect" method for pages that don't even exist here. TR (talk) :I would think the italic statements about not confusing this article with the historical Whig Parties is made redundant by the article name i.e. "Whig Party '''(CSA)". ML4E (talk) 16:32, August 18, 2018 (UTC) ::That, too. TR (talk) 19:08, August 18, 2018 (UTC)